Suing Parents

Children went from being our employees to our bosses, replacing responsibility with entitlement.

In a fascinating new book by Jennifer Senior, All Joy and No Fun: The Paradox of Modern Parenthood, the author tells us that the concept of family life as we now know it didn’t really begin until after World War II when the idea of childhood, as we now know it, first made its appearance.

Throughout most of our country’s history children understood that their role took for granted the notion of reciprocity. In the earliest days, they worked in the fields while at the same time helping to care of their siblings. With industrialization, their contribution to the family’s income came, at a very young age, from jobs in factories, in mines and in mills, in street trades and the very popular task of delivering newspapers to neighbors. All in all, everyone understood that the relationship between parents and children was asymmetrical. All were partners in the difficult task of assuring the needs necessary for their mutual survival.

Children went from being helpers to total dependents, from “useful” to “protected.”

Better times produced not only an economic but a psychological transformation as well. Children were no longer expected to contribute anything. They went from being helpers to total dependents who had to be spared any of life’s hardships. The way social historians describe this transformation, they went from “useful” to “protected.”

Jennifer Senior sums it up this way: “Children stopped working, and parents work twice as hard. Children went from being our employees to our bosses.”

Yet even this short summary doesn’t do justice to the sea change of the parent-child relationship that had its most shocking illustration last week in the judicial system of the state of New Jersey.

Rachel Canning is an 18-year-old who is suing her parents. She brought a lawsuit to force her parents to pay for her private school education and her personal expenses.

It seems that while living at home her parents set rules she was expected to follow. She had to abide by a curfew, commit to doing assigned chores performed by her siblings, and be respectful to her elders. She chose instead to leave home and live with the family of a friend - a home in which she was free to get drunk and to party as she pleased. It seems she valued independence above all. But unfortunately she wasn’t independent enough to be able to support herself - and so she demanded that the parents who had previously bought her a car, paid for her tuition, and set aside money for her college education be legally required to continue to take care of her in the style to which she had become accustomed.

The contract she assumed guided their relationship was “You owe me everything – I owe you nothing” – because after all that’s the way I and so many members of my generation define your job as parent.

In a Morristown court, after Rachel filed for an emergency order to get $600 a week from her parents, Judge Peter Bogaard blasted the young woman, referring to an obscene voicemail she left for her mother.

“Have you ever seen a young adult show such gross disrespect to a parent in a voicemail?” he asked. “The child thumbs her nose at her parents, leaves the house and turns around asking, ‘Now you have to pay me money every week.’ ”

But that’s not how everybody saw this. The voice of the young generation on Facebook was well represented by this offended reaction:

“I have been stunned by the financial greed of modern parents who are more concerned with retiring into some fantasy world rather than provide for their children’s college and young adult years. Suburban baby boomer types are the spoiled lot, they make massive amount of money a year, they are used to flying to luxury destinations when they want, and buy things that they don’t need... people should be inclined to see things my way.”

Perhaps even more outrageous than the idea of the lawsuit itself is the realization that for an entire contemporary subculture its premise is not only legitimate but praiseworthy!

How dare parents work hard to make money and then have the foolish notion that they can spend some of it on themselves. And how dare they think that just because they have standards and values they believe are sacred, they can impose those upon their teenagers as condition for total support.

It is hard to understand how honoring your parents, one of the Ten Commandments, could become so profoundly distorted. Honoring parents is the fifth commandment, appearing at the very bottom of the first tablet. God’s laws were given on two tablets in order to promulgate the concept that religion must acknowledge two great ideals – to fulfill one’s obligations both to God as well as to fellow man.

Commentators ask: why is the commandment to honor parents on the first tablet, the one summarizing our duties to the Almighty? The answer is profound: our parents share with God the need for us to forever gratefully acknowledge their role in having created us. And those who cannot be grateful to parents will surely be unable to express gratitude to God as well.

This incredible lawsuit of child against parents is another example of the current symptom of entitlement making its way through every segment of our society. Children feel, as so many do, that everything they desire is theirs by right. It is the sickness of a world that wants to forget the concept of responsibility. And it is a condition that is best cured by a rededication to the biblical values of personal obligation and gratitude.

Featured at Aish.com:

About the Author

Rabbi Benjamin Blech, a frequent contributor to Aish, is a Professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University and an internationally recognized educator, religious leader, and lecturer. Author of 14 highly acclaimed books with combined sales of over a half million copies, his newest, The World From A Spiritual Perspective, is a collection of over 100 of his best Aish articles. See his website at www.benjaminblech.com.

Visitor Comments: 14

Well, we ARE told that toward the time of Moshiach, the children will teach the parents. So, vervase?

(11)
Dan,
March 12, 2014 1:15 PM

Incomplete article

I agree with the author, but if he has such clear vision, he could have made a suggestion or two about how to improve things. In short, a little tikun olam would have helped.

(10)
Rachel,
March 11, 2014 5:37 PM

She's an adult -- but then, she should act like one

The daughter is 18, which makes her legally an adult. When my kids turned 18, we gave them more freedoms AND more responsibilities. For example -- if our daughter used the car, she had to buy gas. It sounds like the daughter is really out of control. I don't understand why parents would discontinue her tuition payments within months of graduation, but that's really splitting hairs. She is certainly not "entitled" to private school tuition, spending money while living elsewhere, etc. Sounds like she needs to get a job....

(9)
Anonymous,
March 11, 2014 4:36 PM

No Child Left Behind has to do with LITERACY, not rebellion. It was formerly known as The Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Re: Young people having more disposable income than their parents. If that were true, then this country would not have so many unemployed college graduates!

(8)
Anonymous,
March 11, 2014 5:59 AM

Misplaced blame?

It's easy enough to rail on the kid, but how many teenagers have perfect or even particularly good judgment? A breakdown in child-parent relations this severe indicates that more is in play than a wayward or willfully rebellious girl. Are her parents indeed blameless? Moreover, what about the parents of the girl's friend who by all accounts encouraged her to move in with them and then actively promoted the lawsuit? It's doubtful that this case would ever have been filed without these parents, presumably adults. The principal shame should be on them.

(7)
Karen,
March 10, 2014 2:33 PM

One cause - media

It used to be that 'father knew best'. Kids got in trouble and parents helped them with guidance and taking responsibility, not bailing them out. So many stories now involve 'stupid' parents who get bailed out by their 'clever' children.So much of advertising is geared to set children against their parents, as in 'bug your parents til they give in and you get this'.

(6)
Patti M.,
March 10, 2014 1:11 PM

Hitting the proverbial "Nail on the Head"

Having lived thru a parallel situation, I fully agree with this author. A lot of the 'problem' is that we, as parents, were not paying attention to what was happening outside our homes. Society has been undermining the authority of parents for decades in the quest for the 'perfect' family but instead has created a society that believes that children to not reach maturity till almost 30, that the parents obligation is to provide whatever the child's heart desires, even the school system is created to 'leave no child behind' so excuses poor grades & lack of motivation with mediocre grades so that the child will graduate regardless of effort.....there is NO accountability laid at a child's feet....now they even want to force parents into taking 'parenting classes' in order for the CHILD to advance in school!!! The nightmare we went thru was heartbreaking - but the actual consequence to the children is worse!!! My heart sheds tears for our future..........

(5)
Sharon,
March 10, 2014 10:43 AM

don't get it

It sounds like she was raised correctly - being expected to do chores, obey rules, and give respect, so how did she fall so far? I thought it was the spoiled kids that believed in their entitlement.

Julia Arango,
March 10, 2014 12:52 PM

spoiled kids

Yes, it seems the parents did everything correctly in raising her. But, as they say, it takes a village to raise a child. Parents are not the only influence on a kid's life - there are friends, teachers, other families, and the media. There are so many voices out there that tell kids they are entitled1

Jeffrey Dorfman,
March 11, 2014 10:13 PM

Obviously, those parents who expected their daughter to act and be responsible and respectful around the house did not enforce it when she was younger. To me, this shows the parents did a lousy job of raising her . That being said, at 18 years of age, there is no further "legal" obligation to continue to support her. Had she stayed home and acted as a responsible young adult, I am lead to believe the parents here would be happy and honored to give this girl as much support as they could. But, this sweet innocent young girl demanded more than she was entitled to and now will learn, as so many of us had learned, on the outside world, it's dog eat dog and "ain't nothing free".

(4)
Leah,
March 9, 2014 9:13 PM

excellently worded

Perfect! Yasher koach. This whole situation sickens me. This girls' behavior is so poor. the other thing is that she may actually get some sort of support via the court and this, in my opinion would send a horribly wrong message.

(3)
Melissa L,
March 9, 2014 5:33 PM

Agreed!

I think you summed up the current situation quite nicely! Well done!

(2)
William Smith,
March 9, 2014 5:17 PM

Our ancestors faced some of the most atrocious experiences all in the hopes of creating a place where their offspring did suffer as they did. The worst thing that could happen did happen: they were successful.

(1)
Anonymous,
March 9, 2014 2:03 PM

That ship has sailed

Thank you for a great article.
Not sure about the cause(s), since so many young people work and have more disposable income than their parents.
I would like to add that it used to be the case that young people rebelled against the 'man'. Now, that 'man' is parent.
Why? I would suggest that we follow the money. By separating children from parents, through values, who has control over them? And, all in the name of freedom. Yes, music industry, video games, Hollywood, all promise freedom as long as the person follows the way of destruction.
I think we need to look at our own lives and see how secular they really are. This is what Facebook comments are about:double standards. When young people see us steeped in materialism, competing in their sick morality, we have lost our voice.

I live in rural Montana where the Cholov Yisrael milk is difficult to obtain and very expensive. So I drink regular milk. What is your view on this?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Jewish law requires that there be rabbinic supervision during the milking process to ensure that the milk comes from a kosher animal. In the United States, many people rely on the Department of Agriculture's regulations and controls as sufficiently stringent to fulfill the rabbinic requirement for supervision.

Most of the major Kashrut organizations in the United States rely on this as well. You will therefore find many kosher products in America certified with a 'D' next to the kosher symbol. Such products – unless otherwise specified on the label – are not Cholov Yisrael and are assumed kosher based on the DOA's guarantee.

There are many, however, do not rely on this, and will eat only dairy products that are designated as Cholov Yisrael (literally, "Jewish milk"). This is particularly true in large Jewish communities, where Cholov Yisrael is widely available.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein wrote that under limited conditions, such as an institution which consumes a lot of milk and Cholov Yisrael is generally unavailable or especially expensive, American milk is acceptable, as the government supervision is adequate to prevent non-kosher ingredients from being added.

It should be added that the above only applies to milk itself, which is marketed as pure cow's milk. All other dairy products, such as cheeses and butter, may contain non-kosher ingredients and always require kosher certification. In addition, Rabbi Feinstein's ruling applies only in the United States, where government regulations are considered reliable. In other parts of the world, including Europe, Cholov Yisrael is a requirement.

There are additional esoteric reasons for being stringent regarding Cholov Yisrael, and because of this it is generally advisable to consume only Cholov Yisroel dairy foods.

In 1889, 800 Jews arrived in Buenos Aires, marking the birth of the modern Jewish community in Argentina. These immigrants were fleeing poverty and pogroms in Russia, and moved to Argentina because of its open door policy of immigration. By 1920, more than 150,000 Jews were living in Argentina. Juan Peron's rise to power in 1946 was an ominous sign, as he was a Nazi sympathizer with fascist leanings. Peron halted Jewish immigration to Argentina, introduced mandatory Catholic religious instruction in public schools, and allowed Argentina to become a haven for fleeing Nazis. (In 1960, Israeli agents abducted Adolf Eichmann from a Buenos Aires suburb.) Today, Argentina has the largest Jewish community in Latin America with 250,000, though terror attacks have prompted many young people to emigrate. In 1992, the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 32 people. In 1994, the Jewish community headquarters in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 85 people. The perpetrators have never been apprehended.

Be aware of what situations and behaviors give you pleasure. When you feel excessively sad and cannot change your attitude, make a conscious effort to take some action that might alleviate your sadness.

If you anticipate feeling sad, prepare a list of things that might make you feel better. It could be talking to a specific enthusiastic individual, running, taking a walk in a quiet area, looking at pictures of family, listening to music, or reading inspiring words.

While our attitude is a major factor in sadness, lack of positive external situations and events play an important role in how we feel.

[If a criminal has been executed by hanging] his body may not remain suspended overnight ... because it is an insult to God (Deuteronomy 21:23).

Rashi explains that since man was created in the image of God, anything that disparages man is disparaging God as well.

Chilul Hashem, bringing disgrace to the Divine Name, is one of the greatest sins in the Torah. The opposite of chilul Hashem is kiddush Hashem, sanctifying the Divine Name. While this topic has several dimensions to it, there is a living kiddush Hashem which occurs when a Jew behaves in a manner that merits the respect and admiration of other people, who thereby respect the Torah of Israel.

What is chilul Hashem? One Talmudic author stated, "It is when I buy meat from the butcher and delay paying him" (Yoma 86a). To cause someone to say that a Torah scholar is anything less than scrupulous in meeting his obligations is to cause people to lose respect for the Torah.

Suppose someone offers us a business deal of questionable legality. Is the personal gain worth the possible dishonor that we bring not only upon ourselves, but on our nation? If our personal reputation is ours to handle in whatever way we please, shouldn't we handle the reputation of our nation and the God we represent with maximum care?

Jews have given so much, even their lives, for kiddush Hashem. Can we not forego a few dollars to avoid chilul Hashem?

Today I shall...

be scrupulous in all my transactions and relationships to avoid the possibility of bringing dishonor to my God and people.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...